Would You..."take -communion-" Elsewhere?

[Bruce S]

Catholics believe less in human words and more in God's Reality.

My spin is you believe in the Priest more than the elements.

Sorry.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

My spin is you believe in the Priest more than the elements.

Sorry.

How so?

[Bruce S]

The Priest is KEY here. Without a MAN interposed between the bread and wine, according to Catholic belief, the "event" is corrupted. Thus, the priest is the ACTIVATING AGENT, and...according to MY belief, it is a human element, not a divine element that was substituted and done so for the express reason of allowing a priestly class to have control over populations and establish themselves as overlords and ensure corporal power.

[KennC]

Dynamic Presence:

Known as dynamic or spiritual presence, this view stands somewhere between the positions of Luther and Zwingli. Calvin agreed with Zwingli that the bread adn wine are to be understood symbolically. Christ is not physically present in the elements, because His risen, glorified body is in heaven (Heb. 10:12). Still, He is dynamcially and spiritually present in the Lord's Supper through the Holy Spirit. Christ gives spiritual nourishment at the Lord's Supper - from Nelsons New Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

Good Morning Br Adam;

... and thank you for taking the time. "Dynamic Presence" sounds very much as the position of the Anglican Church from what I understand from a friend of mine at St Barnabas. Mind you I know Anglicans at home here who believe and accept the full presence of Christ as does the Catholic Church. This Church has been refered to as the High Anglican Church, when they moved to new facilitys last year the name out front now reads "Anglican Catholic Church".

I just found that interesting, ... but for you then, the Eucharist is more than "symbolic alone"? and is this shared by others and your Pastor at your local Baptist Church you attend?

thanks again for your time on this.

[dUSt]

This Church has been refered to as the High Anglican Church, when they moved to new facilitys last year the name out front now reads "Anglican Catholic Church".

Are you sure they didn't join the Catholic Church? I have attended mass at a local church that use to be Anglican, but joined teh Catholic church a few years ago, and are now "Anglican Rite Catholics", and recognize the authority of the pope.

It was a valid, beautiful mass.

[KennC]

The Priest is KEY here. Without a MAN interposed between the ...

Bruce

... lets interject Peter and Paul here when they healed the sick etc, was it them as men healing the sick or the Christ within them by the power of the Holy Spirit who does the healing? I think think they just supplied the body on earth to get to the sick in the first place, the Lord works through His people.

[Brother Adam]

I just found that interesting, ... but for you then, the Eucharist is more than "symbolic alone"? and is this shared by others and your Pastor at your local Baptist Church you attend?

That's correct. I've never bought the whole "oh its just a symbol that Christ asked us to do" thing. The difference with the Catholic church is, i don't believe the elements are physically changed whereas the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine.

There may be come congragents who agree with me, but the church leadership does not. I've been waiting and praying on it though, being faithful to the church I belong to.

[KennC]

Mornin' Dust;

I don't believe so unless they are associated with St Pats Parish, ... I met the Priest briefly (quite some time ago) when they were still in the old Church and it was he that told me they were High Anglican and believe in the full presence of Christ as well as all the Sacrements.

Intersting point and I'll look into it??

[traichuoi]

...reason of allowing a priestly class to have control over populations and establish themselves as overlords and ensure corporal power.

what the...????

[traichuoi]

Same, we just view it symbolically, not literally.

And we do it once a month, that allows for more time for the Sermon/Homily, Protestants believe more in preaching, less in ritual.

like Flannery O'Connor says and I will quote her again

"Well, if it's symbolic then to hell with it."

it's worth nothing if it's symbolic...why partake in it if it's just a symbol????

[Norseman82]

And we do it once a month, that allows for more time for the Sermon/Homily, Protestants believe more in preaching, less in ritual.

But in the Acts of the Apostles, when references were made to gatherings on the Lord's Day, what was the common activity in those references, preaching or "breaking of the bread" (which is another term for Eucharist)?

[M.SIGGA]

reason of allowing a priestly class to have control over populations and establish themselves as overlords and ensure corporal power.

where do these wild tangents come from? you are romanticising the situation way too much. a priest's activities don't differ that much from the daily activities of many protestant pastors. they organize bakesales and visit people in the hospital. you are reading way too much john cornwell and living in the 13th century.

[KennC]

There may be come congragents who agree with me, but the church leadership does not.

Ah!,

... i don't believe the elements are physically changed whereas the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine.

Yeah, this had me going for awhile just after I came into the Church, perhaps not on the same thought line as yourself but one day the thought came to me, ... I've changed yet I still look the same, my voice still sounds the same as it did, yet I was not the person I was before. My "ex" one day said that I didn't even look the same, "you do but you don't" she couldn't explain it, but she said there's something different, ... gotta tell ya this made me very gratefull to God and made me happy as well, I wasn't a very nice person.

... just babbleing, ... and have to go to work now, good talking with you and say hi to Mrs. Br.Adam

Edited January 28, 2004 by KennC

[Anna]

My spin is you believe in the Priest more than the elements.

spin

n 1: a swift whirling motion (usually of a missile)

2: the act of rotating rapidly; "he gave the crank a spin"; "it

broke off after much twisting" [syn: twirl, twist, twisting,

whirl]

3: rapid descent of an aircraft in a steep spiral spin [syn: tailspin]

v 1: revolve quickly and repeatedly around one's own axis; "The

dervishes whirl around and around without getting dizzy"

[syn: spin around, whirl, reel, gyrate]

2: stream in jets, of liquids: "The creek spun its course

through the woods"

3: cause to spin; "spin a coin" [syn: whirl, birl, twirl]

4: make up a story, as in "spin a yarn"

[Truth]

I think you miss the point.

Catholics believe that the bread and wine turn into Christ's body and blood, literally. It is the focal point of every mass. It is our duty as faithful Christians to defend His body. The Church has been defending this holy sacrament for 2000 years.

It's not a question, for us, of what "denomination" you are talking about. It's a matter of acknowledging what is actually happening during the consecration of the Eucharist. And yes--we believe that only ordained members of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church have been given the power to make this happen--as it is the only way that we can assure that His body remain protected.

You guys keep working that 2000 years. If you drove Hwy I20 to get Arkansas for 2000 years you would never make it. If you took Hwy I30 east you would make it in 3 hours. It more about the direction than the time. I have this in my kitchen to remind me of the truth.

Will the road your are on get you to my place? signed God.....

[Good Friday]

Anna, you beat me to the dictionary definition of "spin." Great minds think alike. :thumb:

Bruce S writes:

Same, we just view it symbolically, not literally.

And we do it once a month, that allows for more time for the Sermon/Homily, Protestants believe more in preaching, less in ritual.

How can two different rituals come from the same source? As you've already noted, you view your communion service symbolically, whereas Catholics see the Eucharist as a divine reality -- the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. How can these two very different beliefs both come from the Apostles?

Catholics believe in a balance between the Word and the Eucharist. That's why every Mass is broken down into two main liturgies: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. For us, though, the Eucharist is the summit of the Christian life. It's one thing to read about God and what He said, and that's a wonderful thing. But it's quite another for Him to make Himself present to us, speaking to us in the here and now, through the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. It's one thing to read about His Sacrifice on Calvary. It's quite another for Him to make that Sacrifice present to us, two thousand years later. Catholics believe that Scripture is very important. The Church frequently encourages us to read more Scripture. But we don't believe that Scripture should take the place of the Eucharist. Both can make Christ present to us, but only the Eucharist can make Christ actually, physically present to us in the here and now, as He was to the Apostles, fulfilling His promise: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20).

The Priest is KEY here. Without a MAN interposed between the bread and wine, according to Catholic belief, the "event" is corrupted. Thus, the priest is the ACTIVATING AGENT, and...according to MY belief, it is a human element, not a divine element that was substituted and done so for the express reason of allowing a priestly class to have control over populations and establish themselves as overlords and ensure corporal power.

First question: In your denomination, does your minister not preside over your communion service? I've yet to go to a church that does not have the minister presiding over communion services and other rituals.

Second: Where do you get your information from? Have you any actual experience with Catholic priests? Have you ever actually read something written by the Pope, or by our Bishops? As has already been said in this thread, Catholic priests function in many of the same ways that Protestant ministers do: they visit the sick and imprisoned, they preside over funerals, they supervise bakesales. This is all part of their vocation. Another part of their vocation is letting Christ work through them to make Himself present to us in the Eucharist.

Some priests, in fact many priests, go above and beyond. Take St. Maximilian Kolbe, for instance. He was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for his outspoken opposition to the Nazis. When a prisoner escaped from the concentration camp, the Nazis decided to kill several people in the camp to make them examples. St. Maximilian Kolbe took one man's place, because that man had a family to take care of. He was starved and tortured, but did not submit to death until they gave him a lethal injection. St. Maximilian Kolbe was a Catholic priest, obviously not interested in having control over populations and establishing himself as an overlord to ensure corporal power.

Another example: Bl. Damien de Veuster, also known as the Leper Priest and the Hero of Molokai. In 1873, he volunteered for an assignment to a leper colony on Molokai. There, he worked with the lepers -- especially the children. In 1885, he contracted leprosy, but he continued to build hospitals, clinics, churches and about six hundred coffins. He died there as a leper, working with lepers, something most would never do. He was a Catholic priest.

These are only two examples among many.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Good Friday

[Truth]

Do you know of any evidence that shows us that this "dynamic presence" was believed by Christians before Luther and Zwingli's time?

You guy beat up on Luther all the time, but where was and did he get his teaching from. Was he not Catholic? Was he not one of the Catholic Church bright minds? When he show the light and confronted the Cc he became a nutt case. Who to say if he was led by God to confront the wrongs of the Cc or not. He was demonized by the Cc, and you have to agree. God led people based on his will not the Cc. He may have been dealt with by God to do what he did. Was that ever a concept in your minds. No because the Cc said he was filled with demonds.

[Truth]

Anna, you beat me to the dictionary definition of "spin."  Great minds think alike.  :thumb:

How can two different rituals come from the same source?  As you've already noted, you view your communion service symbolically, whereas Catholics see the Eucharist as a divine reality -- the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.  How can these two very different beliefs both come from the Apostles?

Catholics believe in a balance between the Word and the Eucharist.  That's why every Mass is broken down into two main liturgies: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  For us, though, the Eucharist is the summit of the Christian life.  It's one thing to read about God and what He said, and that's a wonderful thing.  But it's quite another for Him to make Himself present to us, speaking to us in the here and now, through the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.  It's one thing to read about His Sacrifice on Calvary.  It's quite another for Him to make that Sacrifice present to us, two thousand years later.  Catholics believe that Scripture is very important.  The Church frequently encourages us to read more Scripture.  But we don't believe that Scripture should take the place of the Eucharist.  Both can make Christ present to us, but only the Eucharist can make Christ actually, physically present to us in the here and now, as He was to the Apostles, fulfilling His promise: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20).

First question: In your denomination, does your minister not preside over your communion service?  I've yet to go to a church that does not have the minister presiding over communion services and other rituals.

Second: Where do you get your information from?  Have you any actual experience with Catholic priests?  Have you ever actually read something written by the Pope, or by our Bishops?  As has already been said in this thread, Catholic priests function in many of the same ways that Protestant ministers do: they visit the sick and imprisoned, they preside over funerals, they supervise bakesales.  This is all part of their vocation.  Another part of their vocation is letting Christ work through them to make Himself present to us in the Eucharist.

Some priests, in fact many priests, go above and beyond.  Take St. Maximilian Kolbe, for instance.  He was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp for his outspoken opposition to the Nazis.  When a prisoner escaped from the concentration camp, the Nazis decided to kill several people in the camp to make them examples.  St. Maximilian Kolbe took one man's place, because that man had a family to take care of.  He was starved and tortured, but did not submit to death until they gave him a lethal injection.  St. Maximilian Kolbe was a Catholic priest, obviously not interested in having control over populations and establishing himself as an overlord to ensure corporal power.

Another example: Bl. Damien de Veuster, also known as the Leper Priest and the Hero of Molokai.  In 1873, he volunteered for an assignment to a leper colony on Molokai.  There, he worked with the lepers -- especially the children.  In 1885, he contracted leprosy, but he continued to build hospitals, clinics, churches and about six hundred coffins.  He died there as a leper, working with lepers, something most would never do.  He was a Catholic priest.

These are only two examples among many.

Literal; mean to Upholding the ezact meaning of a word or the words of a text. Word for word: verbatim.

How much of the Gospels where Christ speak is Literal, send me chapter and verse.

Now, tell me where he spoke parabels and metaphor or even parallels. Do you see what is wrong with what you are saying. If it was not said literal its meaning was not literal. Its to bring you to a point of understanding only is you were able to understand. Being that it would have come from God.

You can't change the way the Bible was writing because you claim to have put it together.

The problem here is that the Cc lay claim to everything and say its only they that have a right to it. 2000 years don't make it right it just make it old. You can look at the Jews its even older and still stands, but its just as mislead as the Cc. If you don't get it this time you will never get it because it was not meant for you. He who have an ear let him hear what the spirit is saying to the church.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Truth

[Good Friday]

Truth writes:

You guys keep working that 2000 years. If you drove Hwy I20 to get Arkansas for 2000 years you would never make it. If you took Hwy I30 east you would make it in 3 hours. It more about the direction than the time. I have this in my kitchen to remind me of the truth.

We "work that 2,000 years" because of undeniable scriptural truth:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."  - Matthew 16:18 (emphasis mine).

"And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."  - Matthew 28:20 (emphasis mine).

Is Christ a liar?

Until 1054 A.D., the Catholic Church was the only Church, and history confirms this fact. If the Catholic Church taught error for over a thousand years, and if it was the only Church, then Christ lied when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Are you saying that Christ lied?

He also said He is with His Church all days. How could He have not been with His Church for over a thousand years? That would also make Him a liar, would it not?

We "work that 2,000 years" because the Catholic Church is the only Church that makes any kind of sense. We're the only Church that has existed for 2,000 years, and we were the only Christian Church until 1054 A.D. We are the only Church that Christ could possibly have fulfilled His promise in: "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." If we are that Church, then it is our responsibility to say so.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Good Friday

[Good Friday]

Truth writes:

How much of the Gospel where Christ speak is Literal, send me chapter and verse.

Christ did speak in parables, but those were always understood as parables. At the Last Supper, He said: "This is my Body." Usually, after a confusing parable, the Apostles would have asked Jesus to explain it to them. This time, no clarification was needed, implying that He had already explained it to them before. They may not have understood it yet, but He had already explained it. Otherwise, He would have explained it, as He explained His other parables.

So when did He explain it to them before the Last Supper? In John 6. He explained the meaning of the Eucharist to the Apostles in John 6. Many of His disciples left Him at that time, and He didn't stop them by explaining to them that it was a parable, that He was speaking only in symbolic terms. Surely Jesus would not have allowed them to leave just because they were confused. He would have clarified, if there had been anything to clarify. There wasn't. He meant what He said. It's just that simple. The Apostles came to understand that later, after they were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

And ever since then, the Real Presence has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It stood uncontested until Martin Luther introduced his doctrine of consubstantiation at the beginning of the Reformation, over a millennium after Christ's ascension and the birth of the Church.